Oregon Attorney General Asks Court to Dismiss Marion County Lawsuit Over Sanctuary Laws

AG Rayfield: “The law is clear as to what Marion County should do. There is simply nothing for the court to resolve here.”

Attorney General Dan Rayfield today asked a federal court to dismiss Marion County’s lawsuit regarding Oregon’s sanctuary laws because the law is already clear as to what Marion County must do: Like other public bodies and law enforcement agencies in Oregon, the county cannot release immigration information to federal officials in response to administrative subpoenas unless and until a court issues a judicial order, requiring them to do so. The law is clear on that point and, as a result, there is nothing for the federal district court to clarify in Marion County’s lawsuit.

“Oregon law is straightforward,” said Attorney General Rayfield. “The Ninth Circuit has already ruled that there is no conflict between our sanctuary law and federal law. Public bodies can’t use state resources to help enforce federal immigration law. That’s been the law for nearly four decades, and it is a law that has coexisted peacefully under seven presidential administrations. There’s nothing confusing about that.”

Under Oregon’s sanctuary law framework—first enacted in 1987 and reaffirmed by voters in 2021—state and local officials must decline to produce certain immigration information in response to an administrative subpoena from Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless ICE initiates an enforcement proceeding and obtains a judicial order enforcing that subpoena. That safeguard ensures a neutral judge has had an opportunity to first review and determine whether the subpoena meets legal requirements before state and local officials must comply.

Despite this clear process, when Marion County faced those exact circumstances a few months ago, it filed a lawsuit seeking “clarity,” instead of following well-established processes under state and federal law. The Attorney General’s motion to dismiss that lawsuit argues that no such clarification is necessary, because:

1. The law is clear on what Marion County must do—it cannot lawfully provide immigration information to ICE without a court order. Because the county will suffer no legal consequences from insisting that a court order issue before it complies with the subpoenas, it lacks standing to litigate the hypothetical “conflicts” between state and federal law identified in its complaint.
2. In any event, federal courts have already made clear that federal laws do not displace Oregon’s sanctuary laws. In other words, no conflict exists.
3. Federal courts have repeatedly held that counties, as political subdivisions, cannot sue states in federal court for constitutional challenges to state laws.

“Our system respects state sovereignty, federal authority, and public safety while keeping local resources focused on local priorities. There is simply nothing for the court to resolve here,” said Attorney General Rayfield.

By requiring issuance of a judicial order, Oregon’s sanctuary laws are similar to many other processes in which states and localities protect sensitive information through judicial oversight. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have repeatedly affirmed that states are not required to assist in federal immigration enforcement.

The motion, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, asks the court to dismiss Marion County’s complaint in its entirety.